State of Michigan Archives: on War & Peace

John Kasich:
We need more than Special Forces in Libya

Sen. Marco RUBIO: ISIS needs to be targeted wherever they have an operating space. It will require a specific number of American special operators, in combination with an increase in air strikes.

Q [to Kasich]: Would you put ground troops in Libya?

KASICH: We absolutely have to be -- and not just with special forces. I mean, that's not going to work. We have to be there on the ground in significant numbers. We do have to include our Muslim Arab friends to work with us on that. And we have to be in
the air. It should be a broad coalition, made up of the kinds of people that were involved when we defeated Saddam. Now, you've got to be on the ground and in the air both in Syria and Iraq. And at some point, we will have to deal with Libya. I am very
concerned about ISIS getting their hands on the oilfields in Libya & being able to fund their operations. The fact is cool, calm, deliberate, effective, take care of the job, and then come home. That's what we need to do with our military foreign policy.

Source: 2016 Fox News GOP debate in Detroit Michigan
Mar 3, 2016

Marco Rubio:
I've warned about ISIS in Libya for 2 years; US troops there

Q: You proposed sending a larger number of American ground troops to help defeat ISIS in Syria and Iraq...

RUBIO: That's correct, and Libya.

Q: Because military commanders say the biggest ISIS threat to Europe now is coming from Libya, not Syria?

RUBIO: Correct.

Q: So if you're for putting more U.S. ground troops in Iraq and Syria, are you also ready to send U.S. ground troops on the ground in Libya?

RUBIO: Well, what I've argued from the very beginning is that in order to defeat ISIS, you
must deny them operating spaces. Today that operating space has largely been based in Iraq and Syria, but I've been warning about the Libyan presence for the better part of two years. So they need to be targeted wherever they have an operating space.
They can only be defeated if they are driven out and the territory is held by Sunni Arabs. But it will require a specific number of American special operators, in combination with an increase in air strikes.

Source: 2016 Fox News GOP debate in Detroit Michigan
Mar 3, 2016

Terri Lynn Land:
No military action in Syrian civil war

Senate candidate Terri Lynn Land has so far declined to apologize for an email she sent asking supporters to sign a petition urging her opponent Rep. Gary Peters (D-Mich.) to vote against military action in Syria. The reason critics are demanding an
apology? Land, former Michigan secretary of state, also used the email to ask for donations.

The email outlined Land's position against Syria, but it was the large red button at the bottom labeled "DONATE NOW!" that has incited controversy.
The email text:

"Gary Peters needs to vote 'No' on a bill authorizing US military involvement in this Syrian civil war. The president has failed to show how this internal conflict in Syria affects our national security, and his proposed
military strategy has proved ineffective in the past. I want to be very clear--If I were in the Senate today, I would vote 'No' on a resolution authorizing military action in Syria."

Gary Peters:
Undecided on military intervention in Syria

Terri Lynn Land sent a fundraising email telling conservatives to "stand up to the president" on Syria--an unusually partisan solicitation on an issue of national security that has divided the right. "The president has failed to show how this internal
conflict in Syria affects our national security, and his proposed military strategy has proved ineffective in the past," she writes.

The email asks supporters to sign a petition urging her undecided Democratic rival, Rep. Gary Peters, to join her
and vote "no."

Peters has kept his options open as he studies the issue. "As a former naval officer, I take the decision to use military force very seriously," he
said in an earlier statement. "In the days ahead, I will review classified intelligence, speak with experts, and listen to the people I represent in Michigan before making a decision and casting my vote."

Terri Lynn Land:
No military intervention in Syria

Terri Lynn Land sent a fundraising email telling conservatives to "stand up to the president" on Syria--an unusually partisan solicitation on an issue of national security that has divided the right. "The president has failed to show how this internal
conflict in Syria affects our national security, and his proposed military strategy has proved ineffective in the past," she writes.

The email asks supporters to sign a petition urging her undecided Democratic rival, Rep. Gary Peters, to join her
and vote "no." At the end is a red "DONATE NOW!" button.

The Land campaign downplayed the request for money. "It was an email asking people to sign a petition urging Gary Peters to vote no on the war in Syria and happened to have a donation link like
other emails we send to our email list," said a Land spokesperson. Land had reportedly avoided taking a firm position on Syria until Thursday, when she posted a note on her Facebook wall and created a splash page on her otherwise bare-bones web site.

Q: If you were president, would you need to go to Congress to get authorization to take military action against Iranís nuclear facilities?

A: It depends on one thing: the president does not need that if the target is fleeting. We live in this age of
terrorists with high technology, and if you have a very narrow window to hit a target, if the presidentís going to have to take that on his shoulders, heís going to have to do it. He has the right to do that under the Constitution as the commander in
chief of the military forces. If he has time, then certainly you want to go to Congress, as we did in Iraq, and get the approval of Congress. So itís a matter of whether or not the target is fleeting. And with respect to Iran, Iran is walking down
the path to build a nuclear device. Theyíve got now about a thousand centrifuges; they claim theyíve got 3,000. At some point, we may have to pre-empt that target. If we do, it should be done hopefully with allies but perhaps by the U.S. alone.

Source: 2007 Republican debate in Dearborn, Michigan
Oct 9, 2007

Fred Thompson:
Stabilizing Iraq, and not leaving, is the right policy

Q: Has the Bush policy toward Iraq been a good one?

A: I think the policy that weíre engaged in now is the right one. Clearly, to me, we didnít go in with enough troops and we didnít know what to expect when we got there. But now weíre showing signs
of progress. I think we got to take advantage of the opportunities that we have there, to turn around and us to stabilize that place and not to have to leave with our tail between our legs. If we did that, it would make for a more dangerous USA.

Source: 2007 Republican debate in Dearborn, Michigan
Oct 9, 2007

Fred Thompson:
Iraq certainly had WMDs in the past & would have nukes now

Q: We havenít been able to find the WMD. You said recently that you believed that there were such weapons in Iraq. Do you believe they were there right before we got in and they were moved out somewhere?

A: No, no.

Q: What do you believe?

A: No, I
didnít say that. I was just stating what was obvious, and that is that Saddam had had them prior. They used them against his own people, against the Kurds.

Q: Okay.

A: And of course, he had a nuclear reactor back in Ď81 when the Israelis bombed that.
And the Iraqi Study Group reported that he had designs on reviving his nuclear program, which he had started once upon a time. So thereís not question that he had had them in times past. And in my own estimation, thereís no question that if left to his
own devices, he and his son would still be running that place, attacking their neighbors and murdering their own people and developing a nuclear capability, especially in looking at what Iran is doing. And the whole place would be nuclearized.

Source: 2007 Republican debate in Dearborn, Michigan
Oct 9, 2007

Fred Thompson:
Ask Congress, even if not required, to attack Iranís nukes

Q: If you were president, would you need to go to Congress to get authorization to take military action against Iranís nuclear facilities?

A: Yes, [at a minimum, Iíd consult Congress]. Under the War Powers Act thereís always a conflict as to the exact
applicability of when an engagement lasts for a particular period of time and when the president must come before Congress. I would say that in any close call, you should go to
Congress, whether itís legally required or not, because youíre going to need the American people, and Congress will help you. If they are voting for it or they support it, or leaders, especially in the opposite party, are convinced in
looking at the evidence that this is the right thing to do, that will help you with the American people. In any conflict, weíve got to have the strong support of the American people over a protracted period of time.

Source: 2007 Republican debate in Dearborn, Michigan
Oct 9, 2007

John McCain:
Congressional consultation before attacking Iranís nukes

Q: If you were president, would you need to go to Congress to get authorization to take military action against Iranís nuclear facilities?

A: Weíre dealing of course with hypotheticals. If the situation is that it requires immediate action to ensure
the security of the United States of America, thatís what you take your oath to do when youíre inaugurated as president of the United States. If itís a long series of build-ups, where the threat becomes greater and greater, of course you want to go to
Congress; of course you want to get approval if this is an imminent threat to our security. So it obviously depends on the scenario, but I would, at minimum, consult with the leaders of
Congress because there may become a time where you need the approval of Congress, and I believe that this is a possibility that is maybe closer to reality than we are discussing tonight.

Source: 2007 Republican debate in Dearborn, Michigan
Oct 9, 2007

Mike Huckabee:
Attack Iranís nukes even if Congress says no

Q: If you were president, would you need to go to Congress to get authorization to take military action against Iranís nuclear facilities?

: A president has to do whatever is necessary to protect the American people. If we think Iran is building
nuclear capacity that could be used against us in any way, including selling some of the nuclear capacity to some other terrorist group, then yes, we have a right to do it. And I would do it in a heartbeat.

Q: Without going to Congress?

A:
Well, if itís necessary to get it done because itís actionable right now, yes. If you have the time and the luxury of going to Congress, thatís always better.

Q: And if Congress says no, what do you do?

A: You do whatís best for the
American people, and you suffer the consequences. What you never do is let the American people one day get hit with a nuclear device because you had politics going on in Washington instead of the protection of the American people first.

Q: If you were president, would you need to go to Congress to get authorization to take military action against Iranís nuclear facilities?

A: You sit down with your attorneys and tell you what you have to do, but obviously, the president has to do
whatís in the best interest of the US to protect us against a potential threat. The president did that as he was planning on moving into Iraq and received the authorization of Congress.

Q: Did he need it?

A: You know, weíre going to let the lawyers
sort out what he needed to do and what he didnít need to do, but certainly what you want to do is to have the agreement of all the people in leadership of our government, as well as our friends around the world. But the key thing here is to make sure
that we donít have to use military action against Iran. And thatís why weíre going to have to put a lot tougher sanctions on Iran, economic sanctions, credit sanctions, and treating Ahmadinejad like the rogue and the buffoon that he is.

Source: 2007 Republican debate in Dearborn, Michigan
Oct 9, 2007

Ron Paul:
Mercantilist oil dependency was reason for war

Q: Would we have gone to war in Iraq if we werenít so dependent on Middle East oil?

A: Probably not, but that should not be a reason. Thatís an old theory. Itís mercantilistic. Itís neocolonialism that you have to maintain your supply routes
and your natural resources. But I think thereís still a lot of those kind of people around. You know, we were told it was about oil and jobs when it first started in 1990, and this is just a continuation of that war.

Source: 2007 Republican debate in Dearborn, Michigan
Oct 9, 2007

Ron Paul:
Congressional authorization needed to attack Iranís nukes

Q: If you were president, would you need to go to Congress to get authorization to take military action against Iranís nuclear facilities?

ROMNEY: You sit down with your attorneys and tell you what you have to do.

HUNTER: It depends on one thing: the
president does not need that if the target is fleeting.

PAUL: Absolutely. This idea of going & talking to attorneys totally baffles me. Why donít we just open up the Constitution & read it? Youíre not allowed to go to war without a declaration of war.
Now, as far as fleeting enemies go, yes, if thereís an imminent attack on us, weíd never had that happen in 220 years. The thought that the Iranians could pose an imminent attack on the US is preposterous. Thereís no way.

HUNTER: Not an imminent attack
a fleeting target.

PAUL: This is just continual war propaganda, preparing this nation to go to war and spread this war, not only in Iraq but into Iran, unconstitutionally. Itís a road to disaster if we donít read the Constitution once in a while.

Q: If you were president, would you need to go to Congress to get authorization to take military action against Iranís nuclear facilities?

A: It really depends on exigency of the circumstances and how legitimate it is that it really is an exigent
circumstance. Itís desirable. Itís safer to go to Congress, get approval from Congress. If youíre really dealing with exigent circumstance, then the president has to act in the best interests of the country.

Source: 2007 Republican debate in Dearborn, Michigan
Oct 9, 2007

Sam Brownback:
Iraq war is about terrorism, not oil

Q: Would we have gone to war in Iraq if we werenít so dependent on Middle East oil?

A: I donít believe that in the least. What I voted for was the war on terrorism. And Afghanistan was where the Taliban was -- where al Qaeda was located; it was run by
the Taliban. And we saw in Iraq what we thought was the mixture of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. And it was in 2003, this was in close proximity to 2001, when we had the 9/11 crisis, and I wasnít about to trust that Saddam
Hussein wasnít going to mix terrorists with weapons of mass destruction. And we havenít found the weapons of mass destruction, but that doesnít mean we leave. And I think the Bush administration has generally done well military, and I think the military
has done a fabulous job. I think we have done poorly on the political side. Thatís what has been poorly done by the Bush administration--it hasnít been well-handled politically. Weíve got to get a better bipartisan political solution--we can.

Source: 2007 Republican debate in Dearborn, Michigan
Oct 9, 2007

Debbie Stabenow:
We are not in Iraq forever

Q: Any limit on time for our involvement in Iraq?

STABENOW: Most challenging situation. Itís our job to give them everything they need. Iíve been to Iraq, met with Ministers. We are not there forever.
The Iraqis need to shore up so our people can step back. Weíre doing excellent training of their people.

BOUCHARD: We need to do everything we can to bring more stable and safe situation there. We canít leave it in a vacuum.

Source: 2006 Michigan Senate Debate in Grand Rapids
Oct 15, 2006

Debbie Stabenow:
Iraq was a war of choice, not a necessity

Q: Do you support pre-emptive war?

BOUCHARD: I believe we need to take care of any threat--if we have actual intelligence, yes, we need to protect the US. My opponent has failed to protect America, she voted against missile defense.
We need someone who will stand up to the plate. Iíve been in Law Enforcement in 20 years. Protection is the most important job of government. Sheís not done it.

STABENOW: I supported every defense budget and everything we need to do to protect our families. My opponent didnít answer the question -- which was about Iraq.
I didnít vote to go to Iraq, because it was a war of choice, not a necessity. Iíve been to Iraq - they are brave soldiers who deserve more than a slogan - they need a strategy.

Mike Bouchard:
Pre-emptive war ok if we have actual intel

Q: Do you support pre-emptive war?

BOUCHARD: I believe we need to take care of any threat--if we have actual intelligence, yes, we need to protect the US. My opponent has failed to protect America, she voted against missile defense.
We need someone who will stand up to the plate. Iíve been in Law Enforcement in 20 years. Protection is the most important job of government. Sheís not done it.

STABENOW: I supported every defense budget and everything we need to do to protect our families. My opponent didnít answer the question -- which was about Iraq.
I didnít vote to go to Iraq, because it was a war of choice, not a necessity. Iíve been to Iraq - they are brave soldiers who deserve more than a slogan - they need a strategy.

Source: 2006 Michigan Senate Debate in Grand Rapids
Oct 15, 2006

Mike Bouchard:
We cannot leave a vacuum in Iraq

Q: Any limit on time for our involvement in Iraq?

STABENOW: Most challenging situation. Itís our job to give them everything they need. Iíve been to Iraq, met with Ministers. We are not there forever.
The Iraqis need to shore up so our people can step back. Weíre doing excellent training of their people.

BOUCHARD: We need to do everything we can to bring more stable and safe situation there. We canít leave it in a vacuum.

Bret McAtee:
Theyíre turning the American Republic into an empire

Elected officialsí inebriated state has made them unable both to speak boldly against the turning of the American Republic into an empire, where perpetual war is waged for perpetual peace.
We must realize that these politicians who are drunk with power are like any other drunkard. They will not stop with their erratic and drunken behavior until someone takes the bottle from them.

Source: Declaration of Candidacy For Michigan US Senate
Jan 1, 2006

The above quotations are from State of Michigan Politicians: Archives.